1879 Dubuque Photo -Will the Real Comiskey please stand up or sit down?

[perezfan]

Agree...

Please put us out of this misery, and lock it. I was hoping that we as a group could resist the urge to respond to this nonsense. But apparently the urge to set the OP straight was too overwhelming...

It's time to say sayonara...

[slidekellyslide]

There's nothing in this thread that warrants it being locked. No name calling, no nastiness. While we all may agree there is nothing to debate here and Directly hasn't exactly given us any real facts it's an on topic post.

[perezfan]

It may be "on topic", but what exactly is the topic?

1. Dimentia
2. Derangement
3. Denial
4. Blindness
5. Stupidity
6. Greed
7. Wishful Thinking
8. All of the above

Any subject matter involving baseball players would rank behind those topics, IMHO

[bmarlowe1]

I am sympathetic to the sentiments recently posted, though I think in the end Dan is right.

The the responses to Tom (AKA Directly) continue perhaps due to a concern is that in the future someone might read the first post of the thread and then perhaps jump to a final post or series of posts on the thread by Tom that were not responded to, and then think the photo may be good. Perhaps we shouldn't worry about someone being that stupid.

[Directly]

The prosecution for the record has admitted my player resembles Comiskey. If there is any probability, then what? We should add into the formula all the facts-for a non-bias evaluation, correct. So with all the facts, there is a very high probability my player is indeed the 19 year old Charles Comiskey.

If the audience will please review this entire forum and read between the lines I have been called, deceiving, out of my mind, bogus, ridicules, fake, in so many words a crook, etc, etc, etc-+++ (WHY?) -even my grammar, really composition got something to do with the facts--it appears some are trying every angle of demeanor to try to convince the jury I'm wrong, and they were correct with a inaccurate evaluation. Even years ago, before they took into account all the facts. Then to go as far in writing I had consigned my Comiskey photograph, which was not true or factual .

Its been posted and confirmed any expert can make a mistake, that's comforting.

Sorry, comparing the facts and his facial features. I win.

[Directly]

Thanks Slidekellyslide I appreciate you comment.

I'm just presenting facts, nothing more nothing less. This is still American right? Where collectors can have the right to a public forum to discuss their opinions be right are wrong.

Please calm down and relax, why all the name calling and yelling asking to shut down a important forum just because someone disagrees with another's opinion. I am rather disappointed the facts aren't relevant but its understandable its extremely tough to swallow my 1879 Comiskey photo exist.

[Lordstan]

Tom,
The reason you have been described in that way is because you are either unwilling or unable to see the facts that have been laid before you. What is happening here is that you have been informed by every single person who responded to your post, that it isn't Comiskey. In multiple posts, we have presented unrefutable evidence that this isn't Comiskey. Still you refuse to believe, and have hung onto the idea that the kid may slightly resemble Comiskey combined with a whole bunch of circumstances that aren't even known to be factually true. I'm sorry guy, but that isn't evidence.

One more time let me help you understand the correct way to analyze this information...
It doesn't matter that you think they have a couple features in common.
It doesn't matter that Comiskey was in Dubuque in 1879 and possibly knew the photographer.
It doesn't matter that the pic came from St Louis and some players on the Dubuque team wound up in St Louis. This is your wild assumption and not in any way a provable fact.
Even if all your assumptions were shown to be true, it still wouldn't matter.

WHY?

None of the above matters because the ears don't match.

Why is this important?

The ears are a facial feature that don't change as we age. Therefore, if they are clearly visible, ear shape comparison can be used with virtually 100% accuracy to match photos of people. In your picture, the ears of the kid in question don't match the ears of Charles Comiskey in pictures that we know for sure are him.
The reality is that you could have a thousand other pieces of circumstance that you feel somehow ties Comiskey to this picture, but the kid's ears still won't match. FACT: If the ears don't match it isn't him.

Why am I frustrated? I am ticked because you come on here asking for help. You get answers you don't like and then either ignore them or attempt to invalidate them. You go from "experts aren't always right" to then suggesting that we, as a group, are somehow attempting to purposefully deny the photo's significance. When someone tells me that I don't know what I am doing or that I am lying, I do tend to take it a little personally.
Pretty much, all of the people who responded to you have many years of hobby experience. Many with photograph expertise. BMarlowe1, Mark, is one of, if not "THE" foremost picture identification expert in the entire hobby. If you had read previous threads on this forum, you will see that we are very supportive of individuals who make great "finds." No one here has any desire to disprove something that is real. Can an expert be incorrect? Sure. Being you like to quote about odds so much...What are the odds that when they all agree, they are all wrong together? Astronomical.

You obviously want this picture to be Comiskey, for financial and perhaps other reasons. No matter how hard you try it isn't and won't ever be him.

One last thing.
This is America.
This is not a public forum. It is a private forum. You had to apply to join. Neither you nor I have the "right" to post on this forum. We have the privilege to post our opinions on this forum. (To the Owners/Mods TYVM, BTW). The owners of this forum get to decide what is acceptable and what isn't.

Mark,
Your analysis hit the nail on the head. I asked Dan/Leon to close it so hopefully someone sometime wouldn't do exactly what you stated. We see his responses and assume he can't be this dense, so he must be attempting to defraud. I think policing the hobby is something most serious collectors are concerned about.

Dan,
I understand. I know locking threads is something you guys hate to do. This entire discussion just frustrates me.

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by Directly

The prosecution for the record has admitted my player resembles Comiskey.

That would me me, For the record I said, "This is a classic case of someone finding a 19thC baseball photo with someone who vaguely resembles a well-known figure…..I have no doubt that to you they look alike. However, with all due respect, that means very little when the ear shapes are grossly different.

I don't care about your grammar. Other posters are hard on you mainly because what you have posted shows that you are completely unable to comprehend and respond to simple logical arguments, and your "thinking" on this issue is representative of problems that have plagued the hobby for a long time.

As for the auction house, you definitely submitted your photo to a major auction house in 2011 with the Comiskey claim. They did not accept the claim.